Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Being frugal is for the rich

theoutline.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 305 posts

Re: Being frugal is for the rich

#291

Post by Consultant32452 »

nugget wrote: post #284
Consultant32452 wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a simpler test here. If you weren't sure what color your skin would be, what income bracket you'd be born into, what level of health you'd have at birth, or even what country you'd be born in, would you rather be born in 2018 or 1950?

What about the idea that pride is the most important value to certain people and pride sometimes comes from your wealth, achievements, and performance relative to the rest of society? The paradox would then be that as society becomes wealthier, the gap between the wealthiest people and average people widens in absolute terms, broadly increasing negative emotions. Maybe immersive VR solves this by allowing the mass of…

I think you're too blinded by the US, which is not even close to the majority of the world in terms of population or land mass. Would you rather be a Chinese woman born in China in 1950 or a Chinese woman born in China today? What are the odds you'd have been a victim of infanticide then vs now? How about your potential for education, food security, holding a decent job, likelihood of being victim of violent crime, etc? Do you think that the potential for jealousy overrules all of that?

Re: Being frugal is for the rich

#292

Post by your-nanny »

manigandham wrote: post #288
s73v3r_ wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tell that to a woman who gets pregnant in Texas, or any other red state.

Don't get pregnant then? Does that just happen without any decisions? Or maybe you should go tell that woman that nothing in her life is her fault.

Wow, just... really??? Sometimes it doesn't take any decision at all. I leave it to you to imagine all the ways in which someone might get pregnant without wanting to.

Re: Being frugal is for the rich

#293

Post by your-nanny »

manigandham wrote: post #281
your-nanny wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is a fantasy because the way the real world works means that people operate under constraints such that they do not actually have productive uses of their time, or that their time is already allocated toward necessary obligations, such as caring for children, or for parents.

We all have obligations. Having children is also a choice.

Yes, we all have obligations. What is your point?

Re: Being frugal is for the rich

#294

Post by Consultant32452 »

your-nanny wrote: post #290
Consultant32452 wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>But rich people largely advocate against policies that favor poor people, like generous welfare and equitable taxation. Rich people advocate for policies that protect their status and the value of their properties and investments. Do you suppose it's possible for you to advocate for a specific amount of welfare that you feel is "generous" without attempting to villainize the very people you hope to pay for it? >They…

Your saying that I do doesn't make it so. You should read more carefully. Look at is absolutely as simple as this: the interests of the rich and the nonrich are systematically at odds, yet only one of these groups have any great power to see to it that their interests are served. A society so structured is unjust, fragile, and generally suboptimal. Such societies lend themselves to demogougery and collapse. One needb…

>the interests of the rich and the nonrich are systematically at odds

This is not universally true. It is not true across individuals among the rich/nonrich nor is it true across specific agenda items. This caricature you've created for these two groups is called classism. You are no better than the people who think all poor people are stupid or lazy.

>yet only one of these groups have any great power to see to it that their interests are served.

Okay, let's talk about campaign finance reform. Or is making sure there's no rich people more important to you than making sure everyone has equal political power?

Re: Being frugal is for the rich

#295

Post by gowld »

toasterlovin wrote: post #57
gowld wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

beware of "frugal / FIRE bloggers" because they make their money blogging, and aren't financially independent (last time I checked, MMM was a working carpenter/contractor, while claiming he's "retired" because he "enjoys his work"), which is not an avenue open to their entire audience.

He is a carpenter because he saved enough money as a software engineer to do whatever the fuck he wanted and he wanted to build shit with his hands. Does financial independence somehow only count if you opt sit on your ass all day?

Having a job you like isn't "financial independence", it's having a job you like.

Re: Being frugal is for the rich

#296

Post by gowld »

azernik wrote: post #63
gowld wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> City-based salary adjustments are really something only educated professionals get, That's not entirely true. In many cities, minimum wage is substantially higher ($12-$15/hr) than the Federal minimum ($7.25/hr) > in big cities > So you have to have a car and car insurance Not in big cities.

> Not in big cities. Name five big cities where a average-wage worker can get by without a car and car insurance.

Can you name one that doesn't?

Re: Being frugal is for the rich

#297

Post by azernik »

gowld wrote: post #296
azernik wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Not in big cities. Name five big cities where a average-wage worker can get by without a car and car insurance.

Can you name one that doesn't?

LA. San Diego. Salt Lake City. Atlanta. Houston. Dallas. Miami.

Re: Being frugal is for the rich

#298

Post by your-nanny »

Consultant32452 wrote: post #294
your-nanny wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your saying that I do doesn't make it so. You should read more carefully. Look at is absolutely as simple as this: the interests of the rich and the nonrich are systematically at odds, yet only one of these groups have any great power to see to it that their interests are served. A society so structured is unjust, fragile, and generally suboptimal. Such societies lend themselves to demogougery and collapse. One needb…

>the interests of the rich and the nonrich are systematically at odds This is not universally true. It is not true across individuals among the rich/nonrich nor is it true across specific agenda items. This caricature you've created for these two groups is called classism. You are no better than the people who think all poor people are stupid or lazy. >yet only one of these groups have any great power to see to it th…

Systematically does not mean universally. It means, at a minimum, that their interests diverge non randomly.

Saying that rich and nonrich have different interests is not controversial, except to those intent on denying what is obviously true.

Either you are ill equipped to engage in a discussion on this topic or you are being utterly disingenuous; certainly you have misrepresented what I have said in ways that push a rather tired narrative, one trotted out every time someone pushes back on the status quo of enormous wealth disparity by noting that it has serious negative consequences.

Re: Being frugal is for the rich

#299

Post by Consultant32452 »

your-nanny wrote: post #298
Consultant32452 wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>the interests of the rich and the nonrich are systematically at odds This is not universally true. It is not true across individuals among the rich/nonrich nor is it true across specific agenda items. This caricature you've created for these two groups is called classism. You are no better than the people who think all poor people are stupid or lazy. >yet only one of these groups have any great power to see to it th…

Systematically does not mean universally. It means, at a minimum, that their interests diverge non randomly. Saying that rich and nonrich have different interests is not controversial, except to those intent on denying what is obviously true. Either you are ill equipped to engage in a discussion on this topic or you are being utterly disingenuous; certainly you have misrepresented what I have said in ways that push a…

>one trotted out every time someone pushes back on the status quo of enormous wealth disparity by noting that it has serious negative consequences.

You just can't help yourself. Once again you express more hatred for the rich than you do concern for the wellbeing of the poor.

I'm not denying that there are consequences to wealth or income disparity. I just think you don't appear to care about the wellbeing of the poor beyond the minimal lip-service you have to pay it to justify voicing your hatred for the rich.

Re: Being frugal is for the rich

#300

Post by toasterlovin »

gowld wrote: post #295
toasterlovin wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He is a carpenter because he saved enough money as a software engineer to do whatever the fuck he wanted and he wanted to build shit with his hands. Does financial independence somehow only count if you opt sit on your ass all day?

Having a job you like isn't "financial independence", it's having a job you like.

Financial Independence = Living Expenses That's it.

What you choose to do with your time, whether that be work, or whatever, does not enter into that equation. If you think MMM is lying about being financially independent, then that's a different story. But that he chooses to work has no bearing on his financial independence.

Post reply on HN